March 20, 2011

Farrakhan is fulminating over the bombing of Libya and the disrespect for "a man that built a country over 42 years." He asks Obama "who the hell do you think you are" to tell Qaddafi to "step down and get out." Farrakhan insists that a lot of people "gonna ask you to step out of the White House 'cause they don't want no black face in the White House." There's already an uprising going on in this country, and he's looking right at our Wisconsin protests. See the quote in the post title. He continues:

Look at what's going on in your country and remember your words, because the American people are rising against their own government. It's not Muslims. It's not black people. It's white militia that are angry with their government. And they are well armed. Are you going to tell them: 'Put your arms down, and let's talk it over peacefully'? I hope so, but if not, America will be bathed in blood, not because Farrakhan said so but because dissatisfaction in American has reached the boiling point. Be careful how you manipulate the dissatisfaction in Libya and other parts of the Muslim world."

The overwhelmingly white Wisconsin protesters would be amazed to hear that they are the well-armed, white militia. Ha. I guess white people all look alike to Farrakhan. Our Wisconsin liberals and lefties think they're the furthest thing from the righties and tea partiers.

Why is everyone so convinced he needs Congressional approval? Can you people read? Have you ever heard of the War Powers Resolution Act? He has to notify Congress within 48 hours of commencing military operations (he did). He doesn't need Congressional approval as long as this lasts less than 60 days, with an additional 30 days given for withdrawal. Seriously, this isn't rocket science.

I agree with Mr. Farrakahn. The weapons of the well-armed white militia have been lies, distortion and intimidation. Public Servants have been defined as the ONLY middle class, the only working families and the only Taxpayers. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are the beneficaries of confiscatory compulsory taxation and are the oppressors of the working families of Wisconsin.If you do NOT benefit from cuts in income or property taxes, then you, by definition, are NOT a Taxpayer. Their lies have obfuscated the Truth and their tactics have made it impossible to counter. These Protestors are extremely dangerous agents of change. They are the lumpen protelitariat for Obamas Fascist vision.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

No, not really. Obama is authorized under the act to send in the military and engage in military strikes. Iraq has nothing to do with this...Iraq was a prolonged occupation, not a quick operation. Should this somehow extend to over 60 days, then he needs approval. Seriously, read the act. You might learn something.

If you view the Wisconsin union protesters as part of the establishment (more like the Mubarak camel riders in Egypt, not opponents of the status quo), Farrakhan makes sense -- except that the "uprising going on in this country" has been extraordinarily peaceful and democratic.

Here is what the "Professor of Constitutional Law" who is sitting in the White House had to say on the matter:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”— Sen. Barack Obama, Dec. 20, 2007

Allen,Read the act, not Wikipedia...that synopsis is incorrect. The act essentially says that the president can send in troops or authorize military strikes when deemed necessary. If you look at past operations where it's been invoked, we weren't being threatened or under attack.

'Put your arms down, and let's talk it over peacefully'? I hope so, but if not, America will be bathed in blood, not because Farrakhan said so but because dissatisfaction in American has reached the boiling point.-- Louis Farrakhan

Are you hep to what the Beatles are saying? Dig it, they are telling it like it is. They know what's happening in the city; blackie is getting ready. They put the revolution to music. It's "Helter Skelter." Helter-Skelter is coming down.-- Charles Manson

We all know that partisans will be exchanging arguments this time around to support or oppose the President. Just like what happened in the Gulf War I, Bosnia, post-9/11, etc. and so on. The neo-Just war theory is a flexible doctrine based on who is in power.

I would say that Obama's statement came in a time when this country was strongly anti-war and he was gearing up for an election. I'm not in favor of the strikes at all, but I am fairly sure he's authorized to do so under the act. Whether or not it's constitutional, I don't know--I'm not quite sure it's ever been challenged in court.

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Wikipedia's article on Qaddaffi has this juicy tidbit as to why Farrakhan is on Colonel Q's side:

"In 1984 Gaddafi started plotting terrorist acts inside the U.S. One of the leading groups receiving Gaddafi's money was the Nation of Islam.[29] Al-Rakr, another Libyan-financed gang in Chicago, declared in 1984 that it was preparing for a "race war" to "settle scores with whites". Members of the gang were arrested in 1986 for preparations to bomb government buildings and bring down American planes.[29] In 1986 Libyan state television announced that Libya was training suicide squads to attack American and European interests"

My favorite part of the article said that Colonel Q's personal bodyguard consists of 40 hand-picked virgins.

Again, you have to wonder. Why does he settle for Colonel, instead of general? And why only 40 virgins, instead of the standard 72? This guy must have self-esteem problems.

EDH - You need to check the dictionary definition of Democracy. It happened, and now the public servants are angry and want to overturn it. The voice of Democracy in Wisconsin includes the working men and women Not including public servants), the unemployed, the homeless and Seniors on fixed incomes. Tax increases, at this time are devestating. Shouting down Democracy does not change the truth.

Allen,I'm guessing he did consult with them. Even if they said "no", that doesn't really mean anything. There's a pretty big gap between authorization and consultation. Also, still waiting on your confirmation of the whole "under attack or threat of attack" thing.

Maguro,Do you regularly only take parts of a sentence out of context so it fits your argument?

I don't know if it's Constitutional; it doesn't appear to have been challenged. It's hypocritical that he made the statement and is now authorizing the use of force, but, like I said before--I'm guessing the statement was one used to win votes. Politicians do that a lot...not sure if you've ever seen it before.

"Be careful how you manipulate the dissatisfaction in Libya and other parts of the Muslim world."

You tell 'im, Louie.

Ren said...

Why is everyone so convinced he needs Congressional approval? Can you people read? Have you ever heard of the War Powers Resolution Act? He has to notify Congress within 48 hours of commencing military operations (he did). He doesn't need Congressional approval as long as this lasts less than 60 days, with an additional 30 days given for withdrawal. Seriously, this isn't rocket science.

He doesn't, unless he's a Republican. Then he has to.

PS According to the Pentagon briefer, this is a US-led op. According to the SOS (and ain't that the truth), we're in a supporting role.

Now I know how Kevin Bacon felt in "Animal House".

PPS Charlie Rangel still wants a return to the draft because all the minorities are being made to fight.

Actually, all the minorities go for the specialized stuff and the white guys join to fight.

The sergeant of Siriname remained sergeants after the coup. One of them became chairman of the military council but remained sergeant.Chávez has made the most sycophants of the army generals in chief but while he use a Raul Castro styled uniform , he remain lieutenant colonel.Im guess they dont want to offend the military. In these countries soldiers are a little thin skinned with their losers traditions. Armies that has never won a war , some tomes never battled one. Chavez hide himself during the coup d etat that catapulted him into the Presidency. And sobbed , while being hugged by a priest when he begged for his life after the revolution and the copu detat against the democrat that made him resign. Still they decorated themselves like if they were Alexander, Mac Arthur, Patton or Rommel. Trujillo was called chpita ( bottle tap) for his decorations40 instead of 72?Well the Ukrainian nurse it s not virgin and Kaddafi is a feminist

Allen,Whenever you're ready, show me where it talks about being under attack or a threat of one. You've conveniently skirted around the question. Oh, and again on the consultation--it's a consultation, not an authorization. He could just tell Congress he's going to use military force and that would be enough

The bigger question, exemplified in Madison this weekend, how will BO consolidate his base as he moves forward to 2012? Does he hope Libya quickly fades away as a discussion point so as not to demotivate the anti-war left? Will he need to become more vocal regarding union collective bargaining so as to energize the labor left (not to mention, get their $$$)? And how does he reconcile these two?

As we've seen in Madison these Democratic factions seem to have a natural affinity for each other. Just as Koch Brothers! and working families are easy rallying points for this crowd, I can see some saying

Oh, and Allen? He spoke to a delegation of 18 lawmakers. Leaders of the House and Senate (both sides) included. Like I said before--they didn't have to approve of the plan, they only had to give their input. Apparently, Richard Luger was the only one who expressed outright disapproval.

I know I was beating this drum a lot last night/early this AM (Eastern Time) but again, WTH are we doing in the Libyan Civil War- we don't know who the "Rebels" are and though we know Daffy is a murderous s.o.b, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.But I was comforted to know that we were "protecting" civilians by throwing missiles and dropping bombs on targets in Libya. Then I read this this morning:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRRC-Ij_xoxpHpSxJd-LVDd1JHXQ?docId=999067b967b7412c83d7cce7921da560Yep, the Arab League no longer supports us in OUR version of a No Fly Zone.

The War Powers act, it seems to me, to have enogh holes to sail an aircraft carrier thru--as for the Supreme Court becoming involved, again IMO, not likely--This is a pissing contest between two co-equal branches of government.

I took your challenge and read the act. It completely contradicts what you are saying and affirms what AllenS and others are saying.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

This is clear and specific. The multitude of times this has been violated in the past is a separate issue, but at this juncture Obama is clearly in violation of this law, unlike Bush, who received authorization from a Congress that was then too cowardly to stand by their vote.

No one has cared a whit for anything that Louis Farrakhan has said for at least the past two decades. He's long since become nothing more than the answer to a trivia question. No doubt his statement about Obama will be soon forgotten.

Maguro, if you want to classify it as a lie, that's fine. I'd say it's more incorrect and hypocritical, mainly because a lie usually is made to intentionally deceive. Although, in this case, you could probably argue that he deceived the voters...

I'm kind of curious about what Louie is referring to when he speaks of white militias "armed to the teeth." Is he referring to the Tea Party? Actual militias have had a pretty low profile the last few years.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

§ 1542. Consultation; initial and regular consultationsThe President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part....And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

I look forward to the Michael Moore documentary on this revealing how Obama did it to enrich his buddies at GE...

(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reportedIn the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

"In 1984 Gaddafi started plotting terrorist acts inside the U.S. One of the leading groups receiving Gaddafi's money was the Nation of Islam.[29] Al-Rakr, another Libyan-financed gang in Chicago, declared in 1984 that it was preparing for a "race war" to "settle scores with whites"."

In the late 80's. I was working down at the White House (actually the New Executive Office Building), and noticed two Nation of Islam guys handing out literature right in front of the building, something that no other protest group had ever done.

I reported them to the Secret Service, who quicly told them to hit the road, which they did, peaceably.

Now that I read your posting, I realize that what I thought at the time was my borderline paranoid reaction may have been correct: they may have been casing a possible future terror-attack target.

According to the statutes, cruise missiles are not actually military action.

Interesting point. You might be right, but the War Powers Act is all about "the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities." It seems to me cruise missiles are armed forces, and firing them introduces them into hostiities.

Farrakhan lives for a bloodbath. Obama wouldn't mind a bloodbath but is settling for the bloodless ongoing punishment of whitey. By the way, Afghanistan and now Lybia are mere annoyances to Obama, distractions from the main objective: the systematic destruction of "The Man" and his country, America.

I'm for this "war" because I believe in the value of righteous revenge. Gadhafi should've been killed 25 years ago, then we'd be that much ahead of where we'll be whenever he does go down. If our involvement doesn't result in Gadhafi's death, whether directly at our hands or because we lent the rebels time and strength enough to do it themselves, then I'll consider it a failure. Until then, I say light 'em up.

I don't think that it would be incorrect to call these people from Libya as brown skinned. After all, they must have great tans from hanging around the desert. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of them are about as dark as me. So, let's bomb the fuck out of them.

Also, according to Acts 1996, No. 96-468, p. 581, §1 (Google it! But don't trust what comes up in the results, let me tell you what it essentially says), military songs actually have controlling legal authority during the Lenten season.

In this specific case, we find the relevant phrase in the Marine hymn, I'll quote the first verse:

From the Halls of Montezuma, To the shores of Tripoli; We fight our country's battles In the air, on land, and sea; First to fight for right and freedom And to keep our honor clean: We are proud to claim the title Of United States Marine.

It is clear that since it is the right for the US Marines to be the first to fight in the noted theater of operations that this present action is not in fact an act of war or even one of military violence.

Cruise missiles launched from Navy ships are not within the purview of the Marines' defining "Shores of Tripoli" administration.

Thus, what we have here is simply a UN exercise, which by definition does not require, and indeed explicitly, excludes congressional oversight.

According to NOI theology, white people are wicked demons, e.g. (from wikipedia)

""The Blackman is the original man. From him came all brown, yellow, red, and white people. By using a special method of birth control law, the Blackman was able to produce the white race. This method of birth control was developed by a Black scientist known as Yakub, who envisioned making and teaching a nation of people who would be diametrically opposed to the Original People. A Race of people who would one day rule the original people and the earth for a period of 6,000 years. Yakub promised his followers that he would graft a nation from his own people, and he would teach them how to rule his people, through a system of tricks and lies whereby they use deceit to divide and conquer, and break the unity of the darker people, put one brother against another, and then act as mediators and rule both sides." -Elijah Muhammad[17]"

And NOI theology just gets weirder from there.

Why do you think the World Islamic Council has declared that the Nation is NOT part of the Umma?

Even by the standards of world religious weirdness, this is some heavy-ass weird shit.

No doubt Farrahkan's comments stirred by the preponderance of pork used in sausages made in Wisco and consumed by its caucasian citizenry.

As for the battle of Allan versus Ren. In my view Allan wins, especially since the One could have consulted, hmmm, 30 days ago to discuss and plan, rather than this hurriedly thrown together, bomb from afar, and no boots on the ground waste of effort.

A Race of people who would one day rule the original people and the earth for a period of 6,000 years.

What the heck, why only 6,000 years? I'm guessing, then, that 2007 was year 5,999. Then Barack Obama was elected and Yakub's desendants rejoiced.

Even by the standards of world religious weirdness, this is some heavy-ass weird shit.

That is some weirdness right there, but I have to tell you one day of speaking to a racist South African Boer dude who tried to explain to me that black people are the descendants of Ham, Noah's son, whose sons were as pitch black as their souls. Riiiiight.

No, he is the nation's leading Muslim. He leads a 50,000-strong army of black militant Muslims in the United States bent on creating an all-black state.

He also just threatened the President of the United States ... sending him a warning to "be careful" about which Muslims Obama chooses to kill with his cruise missiles because "it" is "coming to America (it being Muslim domination).

Why is the United States taking part in the attack on Qaddafi or Gaddafi or Quackdaffi as part of "The International Community?" Because the bitch Hillary got the go ahead from the Arab League. I kid you not. Don't believe me? Do your own research, those of you who do research as opposed to the likes of garbage, Jeremy, FSL and AL who simply KNOW the truth by satanic right (or rite).

Response:I gather he will support this war until he decides not to support this war and then he will say he never supported this war and the press will fail to remind the American people that he's a lying liar incapable of telling the truth amidst all his lies.

That is some weirdness right there, but I have to tell you one day of speaking to a racist South African Boer dude who tried to explain to me that black people are the descendants of Ham, Noah's son, whose sons were as pitch black as their souls. Riiiiight.

Nothing uniquely South African about that. The so-called Curse of Ham justification was sometimes used by proponents of slavery before the Civil War and segregation afterward.

In any case, Louis Farrakhan is a wretched joke at best to anyone outside his organization. Focusing on anything he has to say is a waste of time.

In October 2002, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 ( the "October Resolution"), Pub L. No. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498. Plaintiffs argue that the October Resolution is constitutionally inadequate to authorize the military offensive that defendants are now planning against Iraq.

That is some weirdness right there, but I have to tell you one day of speaking to a racist South African Boer dude who tried to explain to me that black people are the descendants of Ham, Noah's son, whose sons were as pitch black as their souls. Riiiiight.

Ren said...I would say that Obama's statement came in a time when this country was strongly anti-war and he was gearing up for an election. I'm not in favor of the strikes at all, but I am fairly sure he's authorized to do so under the act. Whether or not it's constitutional, I don't know--I'm not quite sure it's ever been challenged in court.

Wow-that might be some of the most disingenuous stuff I've read here in a while and that's really saying something.

Ren said...I would say that Obama's statement came in a time when this country was strongly anti-war and he was gearing up for an election. I'm not in favor of the strikes at all, but I am fairly sure he's authorized to do so under the act. Whether or not it's constitutional, I don't know--I'm not quite sure it's ever been challenged in court.

Wow-that might be some of the most disingenuous stuff I've read here in a while and that's really saying something.

This is going to be interesting. Not the Farrakhan part so much, as the military action in Libya.

Obama seems to be following Clinton in the later's use of the military in Serbia, etc. Too squeamish to put boots on the ground, and likely too willing to bow to international pressure to really do much good.

The one thing that might change this is that France has taken a lead here. France, at least for much of the last century, seems to be happier trying to make a name for itself by sniping from the side lines. But my understanding is that this is part of the world where they have a proprietary interest, and so are willing to get involved, and to take the lead.

Nevertheless, Obama screwed the pooch here. If he was going to intervene, he should have done so quickly, instead of dithering until the good colonel was well on his way to getting his act together.

And, so, I don't think that this is going to be just a quick in-and-out, but may take some time, and the longer it takes, the smaller Obama looks, esp. in comparison to the evil George W. Bush.

I don't think that this is going to help Obama get reelected. He has repeatedly dithered when it was important to act decisively, or not act at all. And, he has reminded us why it is dangerous to elect Democrats to the Presidency (at least since LBJ, and maybe even including JFK). They just don't do war very well. Which means that they also don't do much better in foreign relations.

It is a dangerous world out there, and Obama has shown why it is dangerous to elect a naive Democrat with no experience in this area to be Commander in Chief.

Oh, and that famed character that made him so attractive over McCain? He wasn't being thoughtful - he was dithering.

And, looking back to McCain, how many here believe that he would have screwed up our responses to the happenings in the Middle East like Obama has? We are talking a retired Navy Captain, who had been trained to exercise command authority and had graduated from war college.

No, I don't think any of this is going to help President Obama get reelected.

No, he is the nation's leading Muslim. He leads a 50,000-strong army of black militant Muslims in the United States bent on creating an all-black state.

Oh, bullshit. The joke is how you guys treat such idiotic people when they're proven to be idiots. I showed, in a link above, Farrakhan told us Obama was the messiah - now he wants to know who the hell he is? His messiah comments should be thrown in his face but, instead, you guys want to go on with this act that he's some kind of serious thinker and not the damned cult leader he is.

I see the same thing on the Russ Feingold thread after this one:

Feingold is being invited to speak before an astrology outfit and what are the rubes talking about? What role Feingold has played in the protests - when the only important issue is why we have an astrology outfit, big enough to have a convention, in our politics. Where are we, India?

Sarkozy actually increased troops to Afghanistan when Obama asked for that when no other NATO country followed suite IIRC.

Sarkozy has taken plenty of actions in Northern Africa before this and freed Betancourt and negotiated the release of hostages in Niger.

When I went to France shortly before the London bombing plenty of French people ran up to me and informed me specifically to not believe their press and their current leadership about their feelings towards America and Bush. I was frankly astounded.

Shortly after that Sarkozy won-Sarkozy is a different...well I'm back to the premise of this comment.

Point #1) It does take time to co-ordinate a no fly zone-especially between forces not use to working together.

During the Iraq NFZ if you may remember part of the reason we had the friendly fire incident the shoot down of two helicopters was becasue the army was not co-ordinating well with our own forces now imagine...

Point #2) We did not have the manning Obama's procastinating perhaps forced the French and British and others to put up more forces.

( Yes! I feel a power vacuum because the usual Obama defenders have not gotten their talking points yet. Their reflexive hatred of the US military probably has their heads still exploding.)

I was reading this article: 'Unique capabilities' mean virtually all-American war in Libya, and was not surprised to discover that the U.S. is leading the military efforts because we have the assets to project force over long distances that no one else has.

And that's probably why France were jean-on-the-spot bringing down the enemy first: nearby Corsica is a quick refuelling base.

One of the guys I consulted with was going to open a bar in a really tough part of Brooklyn. The area was gentrifing but it was still as bad as it gets these days.

Now the people who were going to hang out and spend money were involved in drugs in one way or another. Either selling or using or selling themselves so they could use or whatever. The problem was that the different crews were ready to shoot it out at the drop of a hat so that didn't lend itself to a situation where you could make money. There was only one solution that would work.

I suggested he hire the Muslims as bouncers. They had handled that at the WWF restaurant and bar in Midtown and did a great job. And the gangs were not going to fuck with them.You see they are one of the toughest gangs of all. Nobody fucks with them.

I don't know if he did or not because I dropped him as a client since it wasn't worth the trouble. But the Muslims remain a pretty tough gang.

That is some weirdness right there, but I have to tell you one day of speaking to a racist South African Boer dude who tried to explain to me that black people are the descendants of Ham, Noah's son, whose sons were as pitch black as their souls. Riiiiight.

Nothing uniquely South African about that. The so-called Curse of Ham justification was sometimes used by proponents of slavery before the Civil War and segregation afterward.

Not only slavery, but probably a key belief among whites generally in the 19th Century. It was a cornerstone of Mormonism, as an example, from its founding to about 1980 when they realized it was costing them Federal money as a violation of the Civil Rights Acts.

I remember as an undergrad in Soc class some Mormon missionaries trying to explain why blacks could not be Mormons using that rationale.

There's a point to being polite. People who pretend that they are getting along, frequently end up getting along. Can anyone name an incident where a black politician or spokesman said something bigoted against whites and that bigotry cost him votes or support among his constituents?....Not so long ago white politicians in the south were militant in their hostility towards blacks and got elected because of it. However, among the larger white community they were shunned and ridiculed. Over time their behavior changed. You can say that some of this is hypocritical, but hypocrites get along better than assholes.....I don't think the larger black community shares Louis' sentiments, but there will be no open disagreement with him. His belief in spaceships hovering above the earth will not be ridiculed. And Jon Stewart will spend more time mocking a grammatical error by Palin than on mocking any absurd or extreme statement by Farrakhan or Wright. It wears you out.

There's a point to being polite. People who pretend that they are getting along, frequently end up getting along. Can anyone name an incident where a black politician or spokesman said something bigoted against whites and that bigotry cost him votes or support among his constituents?....Not so long ago white politicians in the south were militant in their hostility towards blacks and got elected because of it. However, among the larger white community they were shunned and ridiculed. Over time their behavior changed. You can say that some of this is hypocritical, but hypocrites get along better than assholes.....

As usual, William nails it. How I'd love to be able to pick his brain one day.

Vicoria: Thank you for a kind compliment. I sometimes feel that I spend too much of my time on the internet watching Japanese girls having sex with tentacled sea monsters. Especially after the tsunami I feel this is kinky and wrong and wish to turn my attention to the more substantial matters such as are presented on the Althouse blog. It's kind words such as yours that give me the strength to carry on. Each day is a new beginning.